Susilo questions separation of army and police roles
Susilo questions separation of army and police roles
JAKARTA (JP): Coordinating Minister for Political, Social and
Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Tuesday questioned
the separation of the concept of security and defense, and called
for a clearer view than the one which currently defines the first
as being the realm of the police and the second that of the
military.
In his keynote address at a one-day seminar held at Indonesian
Military (TNI) headquarters in Cilangkap, East Jakarta, Susilo
lamented the oversimplification of the concept which innately
assumes that the military thus has no role in security matters.
"I see that there is a simplification in that when we talk
about defense then its the TNI's business, while security is for
the police," he said.
Susilo argued that under military discipline there was no such
seperation as both security and defense came under the same roof.
Indonesia has traditionally adopted a distinctive viewpoint by
which it defines "security and defense".
In the past, such a definition did not ignite too much debate
as both were placed under the stewardship of the military which
comprised the three armed forces and the police.
However, with the advent of the reform era the police has been
separated from the military and has been charged with handling
domestic security.
Thus, the military cannot now indiscriminately intervene in
handling domestic security situations.
While Susilo did not directly reject the current arrangement,
he felt there remained many gray areas which needed clearer
delineation.
He noted People's Consultative Assembly Decree No VII/2000
which states that the TNI, as an instrument of the state, has the
primary task of maintaining national sovereignty and the unity of
the state.
He added that in Article 4 of the Decree, there were three
additional roles assigned to the TNI: conducting humanitarian
civic missions, assisting the National Police in its security
duties and participating in United Nations peacekeeping missions.
Susilo further noted that "if we return to military
discipline, then everything is security."
"In security, there is external defense and internal
security."
"Perhaps, what should be formulated as security would be more
appropriately termed internal security," Susilo remarked.
He further suggested that internal security itself be broken
down further into maintenance of law and order,
counterinsurgency, and fighting armed rebellion.
It is these areas, according to Susilo, which must be clearly
synthesized, in that does defense, which is the TNI's domain,
only encompass external defense?
"If that's what the people demand, then fine!" Susilo
asserted.
"As long as we fully understanding how to position these two
roles in order to keep everything synchronized...If not, then
neither will be optimal in carrying out their duties."
Susilo noted that in reality there remained ambiguous areas in
which the military was interjected and often prescribed to
function in a police-like role while they should be adopting a
more combative stance due to the strength of the threat they
faced.
On the other hand, the police have to face combat situations
which they are not trained for.
"Is it fair for us to place such a heavy burden on the police
whereby they have to face armed threats?"
"We have to position this in the correct manner, the
deployment and employment of our police and military including
what kind of arrangements we develop," he said.
One specific example he brought up was the situation in Aceh.
He asked whether the situation was an internal security
threat, a lawless state, a state of social unrest or whether it
had entered the area of threatening the integrity of the state.
"Who makes such an assessment?"
Susilo underlined that the phenomena in the field must be
approached in a serious fashion.
"Don't assign the TNI or police to an erroneous (unsuitable)
task. Don't encumber soldiers on the field with an overheavy
burden," he asserted.
"Don't spread confusion."(02)